Do fans want the prime timeline back?

I'm not suggesting someone should do an aftermath story. That'd be boring. That'd be too blatant a tie in. What I'm saying is that if you set it far enough AHEAD of that time, like TNG did with TOS, you could do an original series, set on a ship (not an Enterprise), say with the technological boost, they're like today's astronauts, testing out these things and seeing if they really CAN go to ANOTHER GALAXY or backwards and forwards in time safely and responsibly, whether or not they SHOULD, that classic debate, but in a totally new and fresh context.

Click to expand...

True, so why bother bringing back the old continuity after you've gone to so much trouble to get rid of it? Just for the sake of doing so? What does that accomplish? To be blunt, how does that help attract new viewers?

Again, we can't just assume that "restoring the prime timeline" is a goal worth pursuing. Why go to great lengths to accomplish something that doesn't need to be done?

Or, more simply, what possible incentive is there for bringing back the old timeline anyway?

I think getting to a place that's new from a place that's familiar is part of the fun. ST09 was this, a transition to a new place and time. I think that an awesome mid-story could be a dark and gritty serial and a series would be in a future distant to us, maybe a generation who looks at Picard and Janeway like they saw Kirk and Sulu, badass. Trek never RELIED on the predecessors as much as it just barely mentioned them, albiet it did consistently have a formulaic feel.

I think getting to a place that's new from a place that's familiar is part of the fun. ST09 was this, a transition to a new place and time. I think that an awesome mid-story could be a dark and gritty serial and a series would be in a future distant to us, maybe a generation who looks at Picard and Janeway like they saw Kirk and Sulu, badass. Trek never RELIED on the predecessors as much as it just barely mentioned them, albiet it did consistently have a formulaic feel.

Click to expand...

You're not answering his question.

What point would backtracking to the old timeline serve the franchise?

What possible story reason would there be for doing so?

How would this, in any way, shape, or form, entice new fans to come in?

How would this not be anything other than sticking Trek right back into the niche ghetto that almost killed it and catering almost exclusively to the shrinking core fanbase of diehards?

As with all reboots and remakes, these will be quickly forgotten, especially since they don't bring anything substantial and new to the table. All they did until now was Part 1: The Reboot, and Part 2: The Re-Use of a Previous Villain.

Click to expand...

Is that really all you've taken away from these movies ? I find it very unfortunate that you're so focused on not liking the reboot that it's the only thing you know about it.

Like the John Carpenter remake of THE THING? Like the Cronenberg remake of THE FLY? Like the new-and-improved BATTLESTAR GALACTICA? Like every Dracula adaptation since Bela LUgosi? (Sorry, Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman!) Like the Richard Lester version of THE THREE MUSKETEERS? Like every SUPERMAN movies since Kirk Alyn? (Sorry, Christopher Reeve!)

"all reboots and remakes" is way too sweeping a statement!

Click to expand...

Most? I already listed exceptions with the TDK trilogy and Craig Bond films.

Click to expand...

Better, but I really do think that remakes get a bum rap. Hollywood history is littered with classic films that are remakes: BEN-HUR, THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE MALTESE FALCON, TARZAN THE APE MAN, THE MARK OF ZORRO, SOME LIKE IT HOT, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, THE HORROR OF DRACULA, VICTOR/VICTORIA, THE THING, THE FLY, etc. In some cases, there are several classic versions of the same story.

I'm not sure when we decided that remakes and reboots are the devil. I mean, nobody objects when the Met puts on a new production of "Carmen" or Broadway stages a revival of "Death of a Salesman." But remake an old movie or TV show . . . sacrilege!

Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but please stop using films like Ben Hur as an example for remakes. Especially with the case of Ben Hur, each new version was accompanied by a huge leap in film technology. The original 1907 version was a 15 minute silent film. The 1925 version was a long silent film with revolutionary two color technique. The 1959 Charlton Heston version was finally a modern film with color, sound and cinemascope. The 2010 Ben Hur was a mini TV series, so it was transferred yet another medium with different storytelling demands. That is in no way comparable to, let's say, Total Recall 1990 vs Total Recall 2012, where there was no such leap in technology between them.

Same thing goes for stage plays. The very nature of stage plays is that the are re-performed each time, and different theaters need different actors. Films and TV shows are recorded, they stay the same every time. If that is not a distinct difference, then I don't know what would be.

What you don't have in stage plays is remakes of the actual written play. At least to my knowledge. Romeo and Juliet, now without the silly rhymes, and with more sex and violence!
I also have a hard time thinking of books that are remade. Is there a Tom Clancy version of Lord of the Rings?
Or graphic novels that are redrawn because the old drawing style isn't up to date anymore?

But as Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy shows, that in no way means you have to throw away quality of storytelling.

Click to expand...

I would argue there is none to be found in the Dark Knight trilogy. Films 2 and 3 were so full of holes they make the things Trek fans complain about in XI+ seem like nothing at all.

Are you sure it's not simply the more serious tone of those movies you like, instead of the banter and humour of '09 and ID? Isn't that what we had in Nemesis?

Click to expand...

Actually, what I esteem about the Dark Knight trilogy is the power of the story and how it tells an arc of the various characters. It took the ideas involved seriously. Plus I found myself genuinely wrapped up in what happened.

I believe "tone" should match the material. For example people complain about BSG's dark, angst-laden tone--as if that were somehow inappropriate with a story centered around an act of genocide that makes the Holocaust look like a fender bender. Rather, I think the original version's tone in no way matched the story. I had a similar problem with Kindred: The Embraced.

However, humor need not mean empty-headed or silly or shallow. Firefly is a fine example of a series that ran the emotional gamut (pretty much true of all Joss Whedon's work), not least because very few laughs ended up cheap. Ditto The West Wing and Fringe.

For the record I loved the Tim Burton Batman films as well.

I quite liked Abrams' first ST, but hoped the second would be a little less of a roller coaster ride. As I've said to some friends who loved both "They were a lot of fun--but Star Trek has always been more, and I wish these had been." I never minded the laughs. I minded the never-catch-your-breath style that didn't allow for much beyond that roller coaster ride. Snippets of story surrounding explosions, fights and chase scenes. That is, imho, the wrong way round.

Actually, what I esteem about the Dark Knight trilogy is the power of the story and how it tells an arc of the various characters. It took the ideas involved seriously. Plus I found myself genuinely wrapped up in what happened.

Click to expand...

I didn't. Although I really enjoyed Batman Begins, it all fell apart afterwards. Unbelievable ridiculous schemes by The Joker and whatever her name was in TDKR, Harvey Dent's WWE-style heel turn (and immunity to infection), the people refusing to take The Joker's bait, Bruce being a cripple after such a short time as Batman, merrily marching every single cop in the city into the obvious trap in TDKR, the way they healed Bruce's broken back, Bruce's nuclear bomb immunity... I was disappointed to say the least.

I believe "tone" should match the material. For example people complain about BSG's dark, angst-laden tone--as if that were somehow inappropriate with a story centered around an act of genocide that makes the Holocaust look like a fender bender. Rather, I think the original version's tone in no way matched the story. I had a similar problem with Kindred: The Embraced.

However, humor need not mean empty-headed or silly or shallow. Firefly is a fine example of a series that ran the emotional gamut (pretty much true of all Joss Whedon's work), not least because very few laughs ended up cheap. Ditto The West Wing and Fringe.

For the record I loved the Tim Burton Batman films as well.

I quite liked Abrams' first ST, but hoped the second would be a little less of a roller coaster ride. As I've said to some friends who loved both "They were a lot of fun--but Star Trek has always been more, and I wish these had been." I never minded the laughs. I minded the never-catch-your-breath style that didn't allow for much beyond that roller coaster ride. Snippets of story surrounding explosions, fights and chase scenes. That is, imho, the wrong way round.

Click to expand...

Wheras I thought there was plenty of story and it absolutely captured my imagination. Each to their own.

But as Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy shows, that in no way means you have to throw away quality of storytelling.

Click to expand...

I would argue there is none to be found in the Dark Knight trilogy. Films 2 and 3 were so full of holes they make the things Trek fans complain about in XI+ seem like nothing at all.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's a single shred of quality in any of the Nolan Batman movies. I found them to be the worst movies I've ever seen: stupid, pretentious, boring, dreary, nonsensical, visually ugly, and arrogant in the extreme. To me, that's a perfect example of a reboot done wrong, box office notwithstanding. But again, Batman's a flexible enough property that it can withstand multiple interpretations and incarnations and not suffer as a whole for it. Some incarnations will be terrible (Nolan/Bale, Frank Miller and all who emulated him, '50s-era monster/transformation period), some will be mediocre (Burton/Schumacher), some will be terrific (Golden Age, Bronze Age, B:TAS, Adam West seasons 1 and 2, the Silver Age "New Look" period), and all will have their place in some way or another.

So it should be with Star Trek. I'm still not understanding the mentality that the franchise is -- or somehow should be -- too fragile to handle reinterpretation, rebooting, and reinvention. Kirk, Spock, and McCoy have become lasting pop culture icons. Doesn't it follow that the characters will be reinterpreted multiple times over, as other successful fantasy characters do? The insistence that the franchise should chicken out and rigorously backtrack to the old continuity and keep piling on with stuff the mainstream won't care about flies in the face of reality. You can't do that anymore. And I'd argue it wasn't a good idea to do it in the first place, since the franchise suffered for it.

I get what you are saying, but please stop using films like Ben Hur as an example for remakes. Especially with the case of Ben Hur, each new version was accompanied by a huge leap in film technology. The original 1907 version was a 15 minute silent film. The 1925 version was a long silent film with revolutionary two color technique. The 1959 Charlton Heston version was finally a modern film with color, sound and cinemascope. The 2010 Ben Hur was a mini TV series, so it was transferred yet another medium with different storytelling demands. That is in no way comparable to, let's say, Total Recall 1990 vs Total Recall 2012, where there was no such leap in technology between them.

Same thing goes for stage plays. The very nature of stage plays is that the are re-performed each time, and different theaters need different actors. Films and TV shows are recorded, they stay the same every time. If that is not a distinct difference, then I don't know what would be.

Click to expand...

Guess we'd better tell people to stop making films and miniseries of Jane Eyre, then. After all, it's the height of laziness to keep reinterpreting that story. And we can't have all those overlapping adaptations of Jane Austen stories going about. There's no revolutionary reason to redo any of those. And new versions of Dracula? How can they be so bankrupt? And at least three concurrent versions of Sherlock Holmes (soon to be four with Ian McKellan), two of them set in modern times? What is wrong with people?

Reinterpretation and remaking has been standard operating procedure from day one. Stamping your feet and crying foul isn't going to change that.

Most? I already listed exceptions with the TDK trilogy and Craig Bond films.

Click to expand...

Better, but I really do think that remakes get a bum rap. Hollywood history is littered with classic films that are remakes: BEN-HUR, THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE MALTESE FALCON, TARZAN THE APE MAN, THE MARK OF ZORRO, SOME LIKE IT HOT, THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, THE HORROR OF DRACULA, VICTOR/VICTORIA, THE THING, THE FLY, etc. In some cases, there are several classic versions of the same story.

I'm not sure when we decided that remakes and reboots are the devil. I mean, nobody objects when the Met puts on a new production of "Carmen" or Broadway stages a revival of "Death of a Salesman." But remake an old movie or TV show . . . sacrilege!

Click to expand...

I get what you are saying, but please stop using films like Ben Hur as an example for remakes. Especially with the case of Ben Hur, each new version was accompanied by a huge leap in film technology. The original 1907 version was a 15 minute silent film. The 1925 version was a long silent film with revolutionary two color technique. The 1959 Charlton Heston version was finally a modern film with color, sound and cinemascope. The 2010 Ben Hur was a mini TV series, so it was transferred yet another medium with different storytelling demands. That is in no way comparable to, let's say, Total Recall 1990 vs Total Recall 2012, where there was no such leap in technology between them.

Click to expand...

I see your point about changing technology, but part of me still suspects that back in 1959, older folks were going "Ben-Hur again? Hollywood has run out of ideas. And the 1925 version is fine as it is and didn't need to be remade. Stupid kids these days can't appreciate good movies unless they've got lots of flashy color photography and a blaring soundtrack . . . "

I think getting to a place that's new from a place that's familiar is part of the fun. ST09 was this, a transition to a new place and time. I think that an awesome mid-story could be a dark and gritty serial and a series would be in a future distant to us, maybe a generation who looks at Picard and Janeway like they saw Kirk and Sulu, badass. Trek never RELIED on the predecessors as much as it just barely mentioned them, albiet it did consistently have a formulaic feel.

Click to expand...

You're not answering his question.

What point would backtracking to the old timeline serve the franchise?

What possible story reason would there be for doing so?

How would this, in any way, shape, or form, entice new fans to come in?

How would this not be anything other than sticking Trek right back into the niche ghetto that almost killed it and catering almost exclusively to the shrinking core fanbase of diehards?

I don't think these are unfair questions that are being asked.

Click to expand...

The point of "backtracking" to the old timeline is moot. It's not a backtrack. It's not a "whoops, it's broken again, lets fix it". The point with a new series/mini-series would see us in a future of what is now, a future which is really bad. Like those Borg from Enterprise received their subspace message before Archer destroyed them and went into overdrive getting ready for an onslaught. Bear in mind those Borg were from a future that doesn't exist anymore. So the point of going back to the original timeline certainly isn't for the sake of doing so. It's a plot device for the characters in our scary new trek to find hope in making things better for the galaxy.

The story I'm pitching to you that would make this happen is simple. Abrams-Verse. 25th century. Borg vs. Dominion. That's it. You're surviving. Maybe the lead character is a smuggler. Maybe he's a drunk. Maybe he's the last relic of the old Federation or, better yet, Section 31. Maybe he's got a small crew, which includes, for brute force, a Nausicaan. Who knows? All he knows is what he "believes", and that's some mysterious El-Aurian who convinces him, in a very vague way, that this reality isn't the best for either of them. You can build off this, but in this possible future, the war between the Dominion and the Borg would be a great catalyst for someone to get out of that world and into another one.

It would bring new fans in because it wouldn't be Trek like we know. It would be different. I'd like to say that potential writers wouldn't be afraid to kill off main characters or show really bad things. But at the same time, like in the new BattleStar, there needs to be hope, so, in the end, you get to "Earth" and the sun comes up, and life goes on.

And while a return to the prime timeline would run the risk of sticking Star Trek back into a niche, I would challenge that if you can't write a story in that Universe that isn't new, exciting, or something as almost recognizable as Star Trek, then you're not doing a good job as a writer. Pretend for a moment that a new Star Trek didn't involve Rick Berman and anything is possible.

I think getting to a place that's new from a place that's familiar is part of the fun. ST09 was this, a transition to a new place and time. I think that an awesome mid-story could be a dark and gritty serial and a series would be in a future distant to us, maybe a generation who looks at Picard and Janeway like they saw Kirk and Sulu, badass. Trek never RELIED on the predecessors as much as it just barely mentioned them, albiet it did consistently have a formulaic feel.

Click to expand...

You're not answering his question.

What point would backtracking to the old timeline serve the franchise?

What possible story reason would there be for doing so?

How would this, in any way, shape, or form, entice new fans to come in?

How would this not be anything other than sticking Trek right back into the niche ghetto that almost killed it and catering almost exclusively to the shrinking core fanbase of diehards?

I don't think these are unfair questions that are being asked.

Click to expand...

The point of "backtracking" to the old timeline is moot. It's not a backtrack. It's not a "whoops, it's broken again, lets fix it". The point with a new series/mini-series would see us in a future of what is now, a future which is really bad. Like those Borg from Enterprise received their subspace message before Archer destroyed them and went into overdrive getting ready for an onslaught. Bear in mind those Borg were from a future that doesn't exist anymore. So the point of going back to the original timeline certainly isn't for the sake of doing so. It's a plot device for the characters in our scary new trek to find hope in making things better for the galaxy.

The story I'm pitching to you that would make this happen is simple. Abrams-Verse. 25th century. Borg vs. Dominion. That's it. You're surviving. Maybe the lead character is a smuggler. Maybe he's a drunk. Maybe he's the last relic of the old Federation or, better yet, Section 31. Maybe he's got a small crew, which includes, for brute force, a Nausicaan. Who knows? All he knows is what he "believes", and that's some mysterious El-Aurian who convinces him, in a very vague way, that this reality isn't the best for either of them. You can build off this, but in this possible future, the war between the Dominion and the Borg would be a great catalyst for someone to get out of that world and into another one.

It would bring new fans in because it wouldn't be Trek like we know. It would be different. I'd like to say that potential writers wouldn't be afraid to kill off main characters or show really bad things. But at the same time, like in the new BattleStar, there needs to be hope, so, in the end, you get to "Earth" and the sun comes up, and life goes on.

And while a return to the prime timeline would run the risk of sticking Star Trek back into a niche, I would challenge that if you can't write a story in that Universe that isn't new, exciting, or something as almost recognizable as Star Trek, then you're not doing a good job as a writer. Pretend for a moment that a new Star Trek didn't involve Rick Berman and anything is possible.

Click to expand...

You're still missing the point, there is no need to go through the gyration of doing anything to the Abrams timeline, it's not broken, it's simply a different reality. If you want someting set in the Prime Time Line, you simply set it there, period, no need for crazy gyrations. This stubborn streak of yours declaring the Abrams timeline replaced the prime time line is absolutely wrong, as stated by the Bad Robot Folks. They made the movies, they know their intention, and if you disagree with them, that's your issue, but, it doesn't make your claim that the prime time line was replaced, a reality.

The story I'm pitching to you that would make this happen is simple. Abrams-Verse. 25th century. Borg vs. Dominion. That's it. You're surviving. Maybe the lead character is a smuggler. Maybe he's a drunk. Maybe he's the last relic of the old Federation or, better yet, Section 31. Maybe he's got a small crew, which includes, for brute force, a Nausicaan. Who knows? All he knows is what he "believes", and that's some mysterious El-Aurian who convinces him, in a very vague way, that this reality isn't the best for either of them.

Click to expand...

What you've written here seems fine to me. A bit tricky to pull off, but hardly impossible. Potentially a very exciting tale, albeit one that will increasingly depend upon its own mythology--even more than most! But with some compelling characters and good story-telling, you've got a real good possibility here.

Personally, I wouldn't get quite so specific about which timeline is being restored. In fact, the more I think on it the more you surprise us the better I'd like it as an audience member.

In fact, this story/series idea seems to me a good one if totally separate from any idea of the "original" versus the "Abrams" timeline. That seems to me a distraction, and even putting it in those terms answers too many questions I think such a storyline should ask.

The story I'm pitching to you that would make this happen is simple. Abrams-Verse. 25th century. Borg vs. Dominion. That's it. You're surviving. Maybe the lead character is a smuggler. Maybe he's a drunk. Maybe he's the last relic of the old Federation or, better yet, Section 31. Maybe he's got a small crew, which includes, for brute force, a Nausicaan. Who knows? All he knows is what he "believes", and that's some mysterious El-Aurian who convinces him, in a very vague way, that this reality isn't the best for either of them.

Click to expand...

What you've written here seems fine to me. A bit tricky to pull off, but hardly impossible. Potentially a very exciting tale, albeit one that will increasingly depend upon its own mythology--even more than most! But with some compelling characters and good story-telling, you've got a real good possibility here.

Personally, I wouldn't get quite so specific about which timeline is being restored. In fact, the more I think on it the more you surprise us the better I'd like it as an audience member.

In fact, this story/series idea seems to me a good one if totally separate from any idea of the "original" versus the "Abrams" timeline. That seems to me a distraction, and even putting it in those terms answers too many questions I think such a storyline should ask.

Just MHO

Click to expand...

I LOVE this... I agree completely. It doesn't even need to be a "restoration" of the Prime Timeline. It can be an altering a crappy one so that the future is good. Nero's incursion could be a great time to intercept an event, but it doesn't have to be that.

The point that you made, surprising the crew and the audience in having the timeline shift being the ultimate goal would be an incredible piece of television, in My Humble Opinion. ;-)

I think getting to a place that's new from a place that's familiar is part of the fun. ST09 was this, a transition to a new place and time. I think that an awesome mid-story could be a dark and gritty serial and a series would be in a future distant to us, maybe a generation who looks at Picard and Janeway like they saw Kirk and Sulu, badass. Trek never RELIED on the predecessors as much as it just barely mentioned them, albiet it did consistently have a formulaic feel.

Click to expand...

You're not answering his question.

What point would backtracking to the old timeline serve the franchise?

What possible story reason would there be for doing so?

How would this, in any way, shape, or form, entice new fans to come in?

How would this not be anything other than sticking Trek right back into the niche ghetto that almost killed it and catering almost exclusively to the shrinking core fanbase of diehards?

I don't think these are unfair questions that are being asked.

Click to expand...

The point of "backtracking" to the old timeline is moot. It's not a backtrack. It's not a "whoops, it's broken again, lets fix it". The point with a new series/mini-series would see us in a future of what is now, a future which is really bad. Like those Borg from Enterprise received their subspace message before Archer destroyed them and went into overdrive getting ready for an onslaught. Bear in mind those Borg were from a future that doesn't exist anymore. So the point of going back to the original timeline certainly isn't for the sake of doing so. It's a plot device for the characters in our scary new trek to find hope in making things better for the galaxy.

The story I'm pitching to you that would make this happen is simple. Abrams-Verse. 25th century. Borg vs. Dominion. That's it. You're surviving. Maybe the lead character is a smuggler. Maybe he's a drunk. Maybe he's the last relic of the old Federation or, better yet, Section 31. Maybe he's got a small crew, which includes, for brute force, a Nausicaan. Who knows? All he knows is what he "believes", and that's some mysterious El-Aurian who convinces him, in a very vague way, that this reality isn't the best for either of them. You can build off this, but in this possible future, the war between the Dominion and the Borg would be a great catalyst for someone to get out of that world and into another one.

It would bring new fans in because it wouldn't be Trek like we know. It would be different. I'd like to say that potential writers wouldn't be afraid to kill off main characters or show really bad things. But at the same time, like in the new BattleStar, there needs to be hope, so, in the end, you get to "Earth" and the sun comes up, and life goes on.

And while a return to the prime timeline would run the risk of sticking Star Trek back into a niche, I would challenge that if you can't write a story in that Universe that isn't new, exciting, or something as almost recognizable as Star Trek, then you're not doing a good job as a writer. Pretend for a moment that a new Star Trek didn't involve Rick Berman and anything is possible.

Click to expand...

The story you're pitching (a) is too convoluted to make sense to a mass audience, (b) is clearly intended to gear toward the existing Trek fandom, and (c) would probably be better served by a fan-film format. There's nothing here that would serve the franchise's best interests. You may think it's a surefire hit, but it's easy to think that when you're part of the hardcore fandom. Look at it from the vantage point of a new or casual fan, and it's a totally different ballgame.

And that's all the more I care to say on your pitch. It's fan-fic/fan-film material, and would work best in that form. But a full-scale Trek project in that vein? I don't see anyone outside of the core fandom really caring.